United States of America v. Edward Dane Jeffus

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6490
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EDWARD DANE JEFFUS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. N. Carlton
Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:92-cr-00184-NCT-2)
Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: July 1, 2009
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edward Dane Jeffus, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Edward Dane Jeffus, a federal prisoner, seeks to
appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) in part and dismissing it
in part as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008)
motion; denying his motion for an evidentiary hearing; and
denying his motion to alter or amend judgment.
The district court’s orders are not appealable unless
a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone,
369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of
appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
(2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating
that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the
constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or
wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district
court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);
Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jeffus has
not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Additionally, we construe Jeffus’s notice of appeal
and informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second
or successive motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. See United
States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In
order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255
motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new
rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made
retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review;
or (2) newly discovered evidence that would be sufficient to
establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable
factfinder would have found the petitioner guilty of the
offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 (2006). Jeffus’s claims
do not satisfy either of these conditions. We therefore deny
authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.
Although we grant Jeffus’s motion to supplement his
informal brief, we deny his motions to supplement the record on
appeal and for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --